# Delhi Court Convicts Husband of Wife Murder Despite Witnesses Turning Hostile

> A Delhi court has convicted a man for murdering his wife in 2020, ruling that medical findings and circumstantial evidence establish his guilt even though key witnesses turned hostile during the trial.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Delhi · **Published:** 2026-10-23 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/delhi-adalata-ne-patni-ki-hatya-men-pati-ko-thaharaya-doshi-50897 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Delhi Court, Murder Case, Crime News, Samar Vishal, IPC 302

A Delhi court has delivered a crucial verdict convicting a man for the murder of his wife, which took place back in the year 2020. Even though the primary witnesses and family members retracted their initial statements during the judicial proceedings, the court relied heavily on conclusive medical findings and solid circumstantial evidence to establish the crime. The court noted that the accused was present inside the room at the time of the incident and completely failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding how his wife died, thereby cementing the chain of circumstances pointing toward his guilt.

## Postmortem Report and Medical Evidence
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal held Farzuddin alias Nanwa guilty under Section 302 of the IPC in the criminal case registered at the Neb Sarai police station. In an order dated October 13, the court explicitly stated that the circumstances proved on record rule out any possibility of his innocence and establish his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The postmortem report made it clear that the death of Shamina was caused due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation.

## Background and Medical Treatment Context
According to the prosecution, the tragic incident occurred on February 4, 2020, when Farzuddin strangled his wife Shamina. The couple had been staying for about a week at Shamina's sister's residence located in Sangam Vihar. Shamina was staying there to undergo medical treatment for her kidney stones.

## Witnesses Turning Hostile During Trial
Initially, the entire case heavily relied on the statement of an eyewitness. The complainant Mohammad Tahir, a close relative of the deceased, had earlier informed the police that he personally witnessed the accused sitting on top of Shamina and strangulating her. However, during the course of the trial, Tahir completely refused to support his earlier statement. Alongside him, Shamina's sister, her brother, nephew, and niece also backtracked from the statements they had earlier given to the police.

## Circumstantial Evidence Seals the Verdict
The judge acknowledged that other family members were present inside the house and the accused did not have isolated access to the victim. Nevertheless, the court observed that when all circumstances are viewed collectively, the established facts completely eliminate any reasonable possibility of his innocence. The inability of the accused to offer a credible explanation for the unnatural death combined with the medical findings led the court to hold him guilty.

## What this means for you
This judicial ruling carries significant practical implications for the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials where key witnesses turn hostile.

- **Across India:** The verdict reinforces the legal principle that courts can rely on medical reports and circumstantial evidence to secure convictions even when eyewitnesses retract their statements. It serves as an important precedent for prosecutors handling hostile witness scenarios nationwide.
- **In Delhi:** Locally, the ruling sends a strong message regarding accountability in domestic violence and violent crimes within residential premises. It demonstrates that scientific and medical findings can effectively bridge gaps left by uncooperative witnesses.

## Why this happened
This case highlights the legal dynamics when primary witnesses turn hostile and the judiciary relies on corroborative medical and circumstantial proofs to deliver justice.

- **Retraction by Witnesses:** The primary complainant Mohammad Tahir and other family members backed out of their initial police statements during the trial, shifting the evidentiary burden to circumstantial parameters.
- **Medical Confirmation:** The postmortem report scientifically established that the cause of death was strangulation, leaving no room for alternative explanations of natural or accidental death.
- **Lack of Explanation:** The accused failed to offer any credible or logical explanation for how the victim died while he was present inside the room with her.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. When and where did the incident occur?
The incident occurred on February 4, 2020, in the Sangam Vihar area of Delhi.

### 2. Under which section was the accused convicted?
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal convicted the accused Farzuddin alias Nanwa under Section 302 of the IPC.

### 3. Why was Shamina staying at that location?
Shamina was staying at her sister's house because she was undergoing medical treatment for kidney stones there.

### 4. What did the witnesses do during the trial?
The primary complainant Mohammad Tahir, along with Shamina's sister, brother, nephew, and niece, retracted their initial police statements.

### 5. What was established as the cause of death?
The postmortem report clearly established that Shamina died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._